Tweet Lost talkies list

Chevalier's The Big Pond exists.... or is it incomplete? I watched it but slept thru it.

Folks, I know you hate to get your panties in a bunch here, but Freckles is a sad case.

It has had its copyright renewed, but the owner is unknown. It is no longer owned by the RKO or the original producer. To find out who actually owns it would require an expensive copyright check, which will likely cost more than the film would ever garner on DVD or Blu-Ray.

In addition, the act of copying it to DVD or Blu-Ray would be a contravention of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is called conversion.

It can be shown at archival screenings, but video can't happen until the owner is located. I have personally represented the owner of the print and tried to get it preserved on film, which he would allow to happen at no cost--but no archive wants to touch it. EVEN THEY are afraid of the copyrights on this and the fact that it's a low-demand item.

It's all very well and good for you folks to trash collectors who won't share prints, and I have myself. In this case, if someone wants to donate $300-$500 for an exhaustive search of the copyright records, or pay me gas money and lodging to do it myself, then it has to be this way.

If you don't like it, then I encourage you to call your legislator and ask for the laws to be changed, not to trash the poor owner of this film who has done everything in his power to make sure the film can be seen and shared legally.

If you want Freckles shown in your area, then find an archive or a library with a blanket clearance on copyrighted titles, and I will help make it happen. That's more than reasonable.

Eric

Folks, I know you hate to get your panties in a bunch here, but Freckles is a sad case.

It has had its copyright renewed, but the owner is unknown. It is no longer owned by the RKO or the original producer. To find out who actually owns it would require an expensive copyright check, which will likely cost more than the film would ever garner on DVD or Blu-Ray.

Eric

Has a search been done in the Copyright Office for who filed the renewal (in 1962 or 63 I assume)? They will do an official search for a fee of $165 per hour and they should be able to provide the name of the copyright claimant at the time of renewal. That was nearly 50 years ago, admittedly, but it could be a step in the right direction. Here's their Search Request Estimate sheet if anyone's really interested:
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/search_estimate.html

Freckles was remade by 20th Century-Fox in 1960. The AFI lists the production company as Associated Producers, Inc. but the copyright was registered in 20th's name on 31 August 1960, copyright number LP17109.

I see that there was also a 1992 PBS production of the story, but the original novel was long PD by then. Speaking of which, would any of Gene Stratton Porter's descendants have a stake in either film, i.e. did the films revert to them after a time?

-Harold

It's more complex than that. The film was sold before it was renewed, likely to the Alexander Bros. There's been some speculation that Fox may have bought it for the remake in 1960, but there's no substantiated evidence of this. (The story would have been public domain by 1960).

The film has not changed hands since 1978, when the free database kicks in.

It's possible that the Porter heirs have part ownership of the film, but I've been doing research on this for years, and generally they sold the rights for a number of years to an indie producer and then they reverted back to the estate. The producer could still distribute the film, but the remake rights rested with the family.

I suspect it would be 2-3 hours at LoC to hash this out, because the rights probably rest partly with the family and partly with whoever bought the film in the 50s. (So this is a case where the film isn't valuable ENOUGH to justify the expense, not some million dollar lost picture.) Even then, for a public showing, you'd have to get permission from the rights holder, and it's a film that would get 8 people to show up.

The Gene Stratton-Porter films are typical with this. I also have access to a print of Laddie (1940), which is public domain, but RKO has an in-force contract that prevents them from showing it.

There's also Keeper of the Bees (1947), which is an important film (early John Sturges), no longer owned by Columbia, and current rights-holder unknown.

It's funny that people jump up and down about Freckles, and these others no one cares about at all!

The sad news is that there are SOOO many films like this, and the real answer is that they're not valuable. They are, in fact, almost valueless unless you want to bootleg them and face legal consequences.

Eric

The sad news is that there are SOOO many films like this, and the real answer is that they're not valuable. They are, in fact, almost valueless unless you want to bootleg them and face legal consequences.

Eric

This is true, but other than an initial C&D notice, has any 'legger ever gotten nailed for this??

Yes.

An acquaintance of mine was raided by the FBI a few years ago; all charges were dropped--eventually. And it cost him $50,000 in legal fees.

But there's a different issue here. I work with archives and studios a lot; it's very much in my best interest to play by the rules so that I can keep showing films that are not in my basement or those of my friends. That's why I insist on clearing things when I can do it. If I can't, we don't show them.

Eric

Yes.

An acquaintance of mine was raided by the FBI a few years ago; all charges were dropped--eventually. And it cost him $50,000 in legal fees.

But there's a different issue here. I work with archives and studios a lot; it's very much in my best interest to play by the rules so that I can keep showing films that are not in my basement or those of my friends. That's why I insist on clearing things when I can do it. If I can't, we don't show them.

Eric

I certainly understand that, keep up the good work!

Oh, and another story:

I was threatened with a raid and legal action by a major studio when I tried to clear rights for a film THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE.

I bought a print (in an old bombed out exchange) of a film called Going All the Way, which I thought was the Ben Affleck film from 1997.

I tracked down who owned it and called to clear it for a showing WITH THE DIRECTOR AND THE BOOK'S AUTHOR (about as legit as you can get).

Turned out that what I had bought was a soft-core from the early 80s with a similar title. Yes, I threatened with legal action, over a film I didn't have, by a studio that didn't have the film either, on a title that we still can't track down in 35mm.

Sometimes even when you play nice you get bitten.

Eric

Was it good porn, Eric?


And on the issue of claiming rights....

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/25/3m ... rship.html

Bob

I have no idea if it was good porn. I only watched the first reel, at which point I knew that I had the wrong film. I sold it to another collector who has space for such stuff...

We could start a new thread over silly rights issues on films. Sometimes it's just insane.

Does EXPENSIVE WOMEN(1931) starring Dolores Costello exist?

The link to 3m was interesting in them claiming the Color? Purple. Cadbury has tried the same thing with their Dairy Milk Chocolate purple recently. Others have tried the same. They usually get struck out.

Does EXPENSIVE WOMEN(1931) starring Dolores Costello exist?

UCLA has a 16mm print on this title. Actually, since it's a Warners picture it should have played on TCM at some point; does anyone recall seeing it?

-Harold

Never seen it... even on TCM

Does EXPENSIVE WOMEN(1931) starring Dolores Costello exist?

UCLA has a 16mm print on this title. Actually, since it's a Warners picture it should have played on TCM at some point; does anyone recall seeing it?

-Harold

It played on TCM about a decade ago. My copy is on VHS from TCM.
Somebody should request that TCM run it again. It is a Warren William film

I have a fragment for Isle of Escape 30 WARNR. May be shipping it off soon to an archive soon.

Myrna Loy is not in it.

I have a fragment for Isle of Escape 30 WARNR. May be shipping it off soon to an archive soon.

Myrna Loy is not in it.

I have a still from ISLE OF ESCAPE. That's Monte Blue and Betty Compson.

I noticed two Corinne Griffith talkies SATURDAY'S CHILDREN (WB, 1929) and LILY CHRISTINE (Paramount-British, 1932) were not on the list although they both seem to be lost.

Does EXPENSIVE WOMEN(1931) starring Dolores Costello exist?

UCLA has a 16mm print on this title. Actually, since it's a Warners picture it should have played on TCM at some point; does anyone recall seeing it?

-Harold

It played on TCM about a decade ago. My copy is on VHS from TCM.
Somebody should request that TCM run it again. It is a Warren William film

It just played on TCM on December 2, 2011 -- as part of a Warren William birthday tribute. I think I still have it on my DVR.

It just played on TCM on December 2, 2011 -- as part of a Warren William birthday tribute. I think I still have it on my DVR.

I managed to get that one, seemed an unusual title for them to run so I fired up the recorder.

Lost Talkies update:

NIGHT RIDE(1930 Universal), Edward G. Robinson, is this one lost? the LoC only has a Trailer for it.

WHITE SHOULDERS(1931 RKO), Mary Astor, nothing on this. IMDb has it completely Lost!

While we're talking about Warren William, does Honor of the Family survive?

apparently LUMMOX(1930) directed by Herbert Brennon, film elements survive in the British Film Institute. The Vitaphone track is at UCLA.

THE BAD MAN(1930) starring Walter Huston, while it is not lost, it's at UCLA, it is in danger of being lost if it's not restored from the nitrate source material. It was based on one of the most successful Broadway plays of the 1920s which starred Holbrook Blinn in th e Huston role.

Although "His Glorious Night" was missing the sound for reel 2 when we ran it at Cinecon several years ago, the restoration has been completed, I believe, by LOC with a Vitaphone disc from UCLA.

And on to one of my favourite hobby-horses: Can we see His Glorious Night now, please? The only way there's ever going to be informed debate over the Great John Gilbert Myth is if we can actually watch the darn thing.

[Christopher Jacobs]

And on to one of my favourite hobby-horses: Can we see His Glorious Night now, please? The only way there's ever going to be informed debate over the Great John Gilbert Myth is if we can actually watch the darn thing.

While it's far from a great film, it's also far better than its reputation. I wrote something on it on a thread sometime back (or was that back on alt.movies.silent?). The first couple of reels are pretty stiff, and the actors seem to be taking the cliched romantic comedy all too seriously. Somewhere around halfway through the film it's as if they suddenly realized (perhaps someone told them after watching the rushes) that they're in a comedy, everybody lightens up, and it becomes quite a lot of fun. It becomes obvious that it's a satire on the silly costume romance pictures rather than a serious dramatization of a trite and floridly-written script. Of course if half the audience walks out after the first 10 minutes or so, that doesn't do them (or the word or mouth on the film) any good.

Now that the missing sound has been found and re-connected to the picture, I'd certainly buy a Blu-ray of the restored version (a DVD, maybe not).

And on to one of my favourite hobby-horses: Can we see His Glorious Night now, please? The only way there's ever going to be informed debate over the Great John Gilbert Myth is if we can actually watch the darn thing.

The issue with "His Glorious Night" is one of rights. M-G-M made it, but Paramount (if I recall correctly) now controls the story rights, but doesn't really have distribution rights to the original. A solvable problem, if anyone wants to solve it, but not a high priority I'd guess for Warner Bros. (who now owns the M-G-M stuff) and Paramount.

"His Glorious Night" is an interesting picture--but a truly gawdawful one as well. It is not a serious drama, but a high comedy in the vein of "Trouble in Paradise" or "The Jewel Robbery." Gilbert is fine if just a little stiff in this early talkie. The problems are execrable direction by Lionel Barrymore and the performance of the leading lady.

Whatever his merits as an actor (and I find him to be ham on the bone and by far the least of the Barrymores), he was truly the worst major Hollywood studio director of all time. He had no idea how to pace or stage a scene, shot endless staic takes in "American foreground" cutting his actors at the knees, and was generally clueless about how to edit or punch up a scene. Just the WORST--take a look at his stuff that does turn up on TCM--"Madam X," "Redemption" (he doesn't receive screen credit on that one, but he did the damage), the talking sequece in "The Mysterious Island," "The Sea Bat," all just as rotten as they can be with no redeeming value--that'll give you an idea of what Gilbert was up against.

The other problem with HGN is Catherine Dale Owen. She had a very annoying habit (probably a carryover from working on the stage where she would have "played front" to the audience of never looking the other players in the eye. Particularly annoying when she seems unwilling or unable to look her film lover, John Gilbert, in the eye.

Had "His Glorious Night" been made in 1932-33 with the same script, Gilbert in the lead, Jeanette MacDonald or Claudette Colbert in the Owen role, and Lubitsch, Mamoulian, Dieterle or Roy Del Ruth at the helm, we'd likely regard it as a minor classic today.

I want to see this film..... Yes MGM sold the rights to HGN for a remake at Paramount .... A Breath of Scandal (1960).

And on to one of my favourite hobby-horses: Can we see His Glorious Night now, please? The only way there's ever going to be informed debate over the Great John Gilbert Myth is if we can actually watch the darn thing.

The issue with "His Glorious Night" is one of rights. M-G-M made it, but Paramount (if I recall correctly) now controls the story rights, but doesn't really have distribution rights to the original. A solvable problem, if anyone wants to solve it, but not a high priority I'd guess for Warner Bros. (who now owns the M-G-M stuff) and Paramount.

"His Glorious Night" is an interesting picture--but a truly gawdawful one as well. It is not a serious drama, but a high comedy in the vein of "Trouble in Paradise" or "The Jewel Robbery." Gilbert is fine if just a little stiff in this early talkie. The problems are execrable direction by Lionel Barrymore and the performance of the leading lady.

Whatever his merits as an actor (and I find him to be ham on the bone and by far the least of the Barrymores), he was truly the worst major Hollywood studio director of all time. He had no idea how to pace or stage a scene, shot endless staic takes in "American foreground" cutting his actors at the knees, and was generally clueless about how to edit or punch up a scene. Just the WORST--take a look at his stuff that does turn up on TCM--"Madam X," "Redemption" (he doesn't receive screen credit on that one, but he did the damage), the talking sequece in "The Mysterious Island," "The Sea Bat," all just as rotten as they can be with no redeeming value--that'll give you an idea of what Gilbert was up against.

The other problem with HGN is Catherine Dale Owen. She had a very annoying habit (probably a carryover from working on the stage where she would have "played front" to the audience of never looking the other players in the eye. Particularly annoying when she seems unwilling or unable to look her film lover, John Gilbert, in the eye.

Had "His Glorious Night" been made in 1932-33 with the same script, Gilbert in the lead, Jeanette MacDonald or Claudette Colbert in the Owen role, and Lubitsch, Mamoulian, Dieterle or Roy Del Ruth at the helm, we'd likely regard it as a minor classic today.

Lionel was more interested in placating LBMayer than I think directing. LB realized that the sale of early talkies was precarious and a 'Barrymore's' name as director was a selling point. It's not the first time LB wanted to press an actor into directing. He had offered Francis X. Bushman the job of taking over or finishing Ben-Hur during the Italian shoot which was spiraling out of control. Bushman wisely refused and advised Mayer to get the film back to LA or they would be in Italy forever. Lionel Barrymore had directed several silent pictures for LB and Richard Rowland in the early days of Metro Pictures. Both Lionel and Ethel were contracted to Metro during WW1. But Lionel had not directed since 1917 and by 1929 picture making had advanced and sound was a reality. Simply his skills had not been honed in twelve years of inactivity as his career was spent in front of the camera rather than behind it.